824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Manuel Cordero for other respondents.

Villaviza vs. Panganiban

No. L-19760. April 30, 1964. REYES, J.B.L., J.:
MARCELO VILLAVIZA, ET AL.,
petitioners, vs. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET Review of the decision of the Court of Agrarian
AL., respondents. Relations, Cabanatuan City, in its Case No. 2088-NE-
Agricultural tenancy; Prescription of action for
60, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent
violation of security of tenure of tenant.—A tenant's right to
Quirino Capalad to pay the petitioners as follows:
be respected in his tenure under Republic Act 1199, as
1. Jose Aguilar P297.00
amended, is an obligation of the landholder created by law,
2. Agapito Neuda 264.75
and an action for violation thereof prescribes in tan years
3. Sixto Malarulat 264.25
under No. 2 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code.
4. Rafael Alamon 164.00
Same; Ejected tenant's earnings elsewhere not deducted
5. Petronilo Aguilar 335.25
from damages.—Under section 27 (1) of Republic Act 1199, 6. Eulogio Samaniego 219.00
as amend- 7. Castor Rufino 234.00
825
The following respondents are hereby ordered to vacate their
VOL. 10, APRIL 30, 1964 825
respective landholdings in favor of the petitioners, subject to the
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
provisions of pars. 3 and 4, Sec. 22, R.A. No. 1199, as amended, the
ed, an illegally ejected tenant' earnings elsewhere may indemnity in the aforestated paragraphs, supra, shall be paid by
not be deducted from but is to be added to the damages respondent Quirino Capalad:
granted him upon reinstatement. Respondents Petitioners
1. Alejo Pramel 1. Jose Aguilar
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Agrarian 2. Severino Padilla 2. Agapito Neuda
Relations (Cabanatuan City). 3. Domingo Villaviza 3. Rafael Alamon
4. Marcelo Villaviza 4. Petronilo Aguilar
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
5. Cirilo Ramos 5. Eulogio Samaniego
Alejandro C. Villaviza for petitioners.
6. Ciriaco Pizaro 6. Castor Rufino
Ipac & Fajardo for respondent Judge Tomas 7. Cesario Villaviza ) 7. Sixto Malarulat
Panganiban.
 Ben Morelos ) The above claim is wild and reckless and definitely
Juan Morelos ) without merit, since the decision itself contains the
SO ORDERED."
The lower court found that the above-named
respondents (petitioners below) were tenants since
1944 in a riceand situated in Aliaga, Nueva Ecija, and
owned by Do-
826
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Villaviza, vs. Panganiban
mingo Fajardo. Fajardo gave out the land for lease
(civil lease) to the petitioner, -Quirino Capalad,
starting with the crop year 1955-56. The said lessee, in
June, 1955, plowed the land by machinery, and
installed, as his tenants, his above-named co-
petitioners in this Court, so that when the respondents
went back to their respective landholdings to prepare
them for planting they found the land already
cultivated. The respondents-tenants demanded their
reinstatement, but everytime they did, which they did
yearly until the present suit was filed, Quirino
Capalad promised, but never fulfilled, to reinstate
them for the agricultural year following said demands.
As grounds for the petition for review, the
petitioners claim grave abuse of discretion by the
Agrarian Court and a lack of substantive evidence to
support its findings.
recitals of the testimonies of the witnesses upon which
the court based its findings, and the petitioners do not
question the existence and adequacy of these
testimonies. That the courtbelieved the
evidence for the respondents rather than those for the
petitioners is fee tenancy court's prerogative, and, as a
reviewing court, the Supreme Court will not weigh
anew the evidence ; all that this Court is called upon to
do, insofar as the evidence is concerned, is to find out if
the conclusion of the lower court is supported by
substantive evidence; and the present case is, as
hereinbefore explained
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under
Republic Act 1199, :as amended, is an obligation of the
landholder created by law,, and an action for violation
thereof prescribes in ten .years under No. !2 of Article
1144 of the Civil Code The respondents were ousted
from their landholdings in June, 1955, they filed the
present action on 31 March 1960; therefore, the period
of limitation had notex-pired.
The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants-
respondents have engaged in gainful -occupations
since their illegal ejectment ;and had delayed the filing
of the case, and for these reasons the court made an
award for damages against Quirino Capalad
equivalent to only two har-
 827
VOL, 10, APRIL 30, 1964
Villaviza vs. Panganiban
vests based on the landholder's share for the crop year
1954-1955,
The premises for the award are erroneous. Under
section 27(1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a
tenant's earnings may not be deducted from the
damages because the said section positively provides
that the tenant's freedom to earn elsewhere is to be
added ("in addition") to his right to damages in case of
Illegal ejectment (Lustre, et al, vs, CAR, et al., L-
19654, March 21, 1964). Nor am it be said that the
respondents-tenants are guilty of laches for having
unnecessarily delayed the filing of the case, because
the delay was attributable to Capalad's promises to
reinstate them.
The amount of the award to each respondent should
not, however, fee disturbed because ?the respondents'
non-appeal from the decision Indicates their
satisfaction there-with and a waiver of any
amounts other than those indicated in the decision
(David v. de la Cruz, et al., L-11656, 18 April 1958; Dy,
et al. vs. Kuizon, L-16654, 30 Nov. 19.61),
FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the
decision 'under review is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the petitioners.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista
827 Angelo, Labrador,Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon
and Makalintal, JJ.,concur.
Decision affirmed.
Notes.—Findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian
Relations based on substantial evidence will not be
disturbed by the Supreme Court on appeal "unless it is
shown that they;are unfounded or were arbitrarily
arrived at, or that said court had failed to consider
important evidence to the contrary." (Carillo v. Allied
Workers' Asso. of the Philippines, L-23889, July 31,
1968, 24 SCRA 566-570, quoting Lapina v. Court of
Agrarian Relations, L-20706, Sept. 25, 1967).
Back wages.—As to payment of back wages under
the Industrial Peace Act, see Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc.
v. Sangilo-Itogon Workers' Union, L-24189, Aug. 30,
1968, 24 SCRA 873, 887-888 for a restatement of the
guidelines to be observed in the ascertainment of !)he
total back wages
828
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Vda. de Ampil vs. Alvendia
payable to an employee whose reinstatement is
ordered by the Industrial Court.
_____________